Modern ships of warReed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
History
Modern ships of war
Reed, Edward J. (Edward James), Sir
Navies; Warships
In an act of Congress approved March, 1885, five additional vessels
were authorized, and these, the _Charleston_, _Baltimore_, _Newark_,
and gun-boats No. 1 and 2, are under construction.[49]
Up to the time of the inception of these cruisers no steel for
ship-plates had been rolled in the United States. Construction in
American iron plates had been extensively carried on, but if steel
plating was required it had to be imported at great cost to the
builder. Those who contemplated bidding on the proposals issued
by the government for the first four vessels had to consider this
matter. Mr. John Roach, of New York and of Chester, Pennsylvania,
undertook the manufacture of this material, and finding that success
attended his experiment, he was able to direct extensively the
steel-works at Thurlow, Pennsylvania, to this line of business,
and when the bids were opened it was found that this new industry,
introduced through his enterprise, enabled him to underbid all
competitors. After receiving the contracts for the ships, Mr. Roach
contracted with the Phœnix Iron Company, of Phœnixville, with Messrs.
Park Brothers, of Pittsburgh, and the Norway Iron and Steel Works, of
South Boston, for supplies of similar material: thus the first step
in this effort to rehabilitate the navy resulted in introducing a
new industry into the country. The still more extensive development
of industries that will attend the work of rehabilitation as it
advances will be treated further on.
Before presenting the types of cruisers which are now to be
introduced into the navy, it may be well to refer to an error that
exists, or has existed, in the popular mind as to the signification
of a steel cruiser. To many who are uninformed in technical language
the word steel, in connection with a vessel of war, implies
protecting armor, and such misapprehension would convey the idea that
a cruiser of steel is able to contend with an armored vessel. This
is a mistake; there is protection obtained by constructing a vessel
of steel, but not such as is provided by armor. The destructive
effect of shell-firing and the development in modern artillery have
made armor necessary for all vessels which can carry it, and has
also made it necessary to provide all other protection possible to
vessels that cannot carry armor. Although this protection cannot be
given absolutely to the hull of such ships and to the _personnel_,
it is provided to the _buoyancy_ by the introduction of water-tight
compartments and protective decks, which limit the destructive effect
of the fire of the enemy and localize the water that may enter
through shot-holes. With a wooden hull it would not be possible to
combine this precaution because of the difficulty in making joints
water-tight between wood and metal, and in consequence of the weight
that would be added to a wooden hull, which is already from sixteen
per cent. to twenty per cent. heavier than if constructed of steel.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account